How long will the cons have to hear they trashed the economy?

[peach174]

Right Tm.
Which party did the Entitlements? Dem's
Unfunded entitlements is now at 119 trillion.
Both parties are to blame.

 

[ERGO]

Because that is what your masters want you to do.

Not all wealthy people are republicans.

The wealthy who are NOT republicans want their taxes raised to help fund the country.


ALL wealthy people nedd to pay more and they dont need MORE tax cuts when their taxes are historically low right now and have been for a decade.

A decade I might mention that they didnt create many jobs.

At what income level do you consider someone wealthy? Suggesting that the wealthy who are NOT Republicans want their income taxes raised is a blanket statement, suggesting all wealthy Democrats....Progressive and alike want to pay more taxes is just plain false...erroneous!

The truly wealthy, Democrat or Republican, have tax lawyers that know where all the loopholes are in the Tax code. Some will say they are for paying more income tax, as crazy as that is, but don't mention that a lot of the wealth the " wealthy" accumulate is from capital gains, they don't pay the income tax required in this regard, per se. A lot of their income is declared to come from capital gains...investments.
Raising the "Wealthy's" income taxes isn't going to help very much with annual budget deficits of 1.4 Trillion to 2 Trillion dollars. CONTROL SPENDING!

Raising ANYBODY'S taxes isn't going to help very much if the government doesn't control it's spending. The government isn't frugal with the taxpayers money, there's really not much incentive for the government to control it's spending or to be frugal. It's money comes from the people paying taxes or from borrowing and borrowing, some people, if they are not forthcoming with paying their income tax risk having a visit from the I.R.S the Infernal Revenue Service.
The U.S.'s globe-trotting military adventures and wars are very costly and so is an never ending expanding Federal government...bloated bureaucracies.

 

[ERGO]

Because that is what your masters want you to do.

Not all wealthy people are republicans.

The wealthy who are NOT republicans want their taxes raised to help fund the country.


ALL wealthy people nedd to pay more and they dont need MORE tax cuts when their taxes are historically low right now and have been for a decade.

A decade I might mention that they didnt create many jobs.

Right Tm.
Which party did the Entitlements? Dem's
Unfunded entitlements is now at 119 trillion.
Both parties are to blame.

One the one hand it is said:
Democrats robbed Social Security to pay for big-government schemes
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) program.
In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate paved the way for the Social Security "Trust Fund" to be placed in the general fund where, for many years thereafter, Democrats spent billions from it on everything but Social Security.
Another Congress, both houses controlled by Democrats, then eliminated the income tax deduction for FICA withholding.
A few years later Congress passed a tax of 85 percent on Social Security recipients. Both houses were again controlled by Democrats. Over the years Democrats raised individual contributions to 7.65 percent a percentage matched by employers.
Every election cycle, Democrats claim Republicans will slash Social Security benefits if elected.
The only "slashing" has been when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

One the other hand it is said:
When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam.

 

[Staidhup]

Conservatives trashed the country? So who was it that created this entitlement based society? The problem, travail of liberalism, is simple, those on the left don't understand human nature and think that throwing money at a problem will solve it without understanding the root of the problem, ah but they get reelected don't they, and the monster grows larger and wants more, without having to be accountable nor contribute. Talk about pathetic. Everything for free as long that someone else has to pay the bill.